What I Have Been Reading….The Wonders of Creation by Kristen Page

The Wonders of Creation is the 6^th in Wheaton College’s Hansen Lectureship Series exploring the life and writings of 7 British authors studied at Wheaton’s Marian E. Wade Center – C.S. Lewis, J.R.R Tolkien, Owen Barfield, G. K. Chesterton, Dorothy L. Sayers, Charles Williams, and George Macdonald. Like the other books in the series, it is based on series of 3 lectures given at Wheaton by a Wheaton faculty member, with each receiving a short response from other academics. I have thoroughly enjoyed this series and have written reviews of most of the books in the series. I was particularly excited to read The Wonders of Creation: Learning Stewardship from Narnia and Middle-Earth by Kristen Page. A book that gleaned insights from Tolkien and Lewis to help us learn how to manage the demands of living in a modern world in an environmentally sustainable way sounded like a book that spoke to some of my deepest interests. However, it had several short comings that left me quite disappointed and feeling like an opportunity had been missed: one shortcoming was rather than learning from Narnia and Middle-Earth about environmental stewardship, it felt like examples from Narnia, Middle-Earth and even scripture were simply tacked on to Dr. Page’s preexisting ecological philosophy. A second shortcoming was that while the apparent target audience of the book was conservative evangelical Christians (a group Page notes “are the least likely group in the United States to regard environmental protection as necessary or even biblical”), much of the book seemed to lack an understanding of how to effectively communicate with conservative evangelicals in a way that might achieve Page’s goal.

In the book’s first essay, Page explores the question, “Could literary landscapes teach us to see creation in a new way and possibly even motivate readers toward environmental stewardship?” Page proceeds to discuss the impact literature has had on her appreciation of nature, noting that fantasy landscapes such as those in C. S. Lewis’s The Magician’s Nephew cultivated in her a sense of connectedness to the natural world. Part of the reason Lewis and Tolkien’s imagined worlds have such power is because both authors spent much time in nature and thus had an extensive knowledge of real landscapes they could translate into a fictional world. Noting that these landscapes have a transforming impact on the characters in the story, she wonders if “readers might also experience transformations as they participate in the journeys of the characters.” She gives an example from Lewis’s The Last Battle in which King Tirian, upon hearing of the destruction of an ancient stand of trees, rushes to stop the logging. Connecting this to our present day situation by presenting statistics about the rate of deforestation in our present world, she then asks, “Could the compassion stirred by Lewis transform our reaction to the devastation of real forests?” Page answers this by noting the example of Bill Mckibben, founder of 350, a global movement against climate change, who was profoundly influenced by the fantasy world of Narnia as a child. He credits this influence as the primary reason he became an environmental activist as an adult.

Stepping Out of the Wardrobe

I had a lot of mixed feelings reading this essay. On one hand, I resonate very deeply with a lot of the material presented. I have often, after reading The Lord of the Rings, found myself mentally far more aware of the landscape around me as I take bike rides through the country side. Every little rise in the land or stand of trees becomes more interesting as I wonder how the area around my home compares to Middle-Earth. Could it be similar to the woods Strider leads the hobbits through after leaving Bree? Are there wild-men hiding in that patch of forest? What if Ents come striding across that field? What I am less convinced about is the transformative power of literature to motivate people toward environmental action. After I finish my bike ride and I come back to the ‘real world’, it is very easy to come back to my normal habits without much thought. I would argue that people who find Lewis and Tolkien’s work motivating toward environmental concern have hearts already prepared by previous experiences in life; thus they are not so much transformed as encouraged and inspired to continue down a path they have already embarked upon.

I also question what sort of transformation Dr. Page was envisaging, as she seems to conflate spiritual conversion with awakening environmental awareness. In a section where she makes a case that many evangelicals have missed out on the full theological implications of scripture with respect to environmental concerns (which I agree with), she makes the following statement: “ Ultimately, when we forget that “creation is the place where God dwells,” we forget our own place in creation and begin to think of our “role” in creation as simply utilitarian. If we can transform that mindset and truly begin to see ourselves as a part of creation, we will make decisions based on a more expanded view of community.” Then after quoting Colossians 1:15-20 she writes, “ In the fictional writings of Lewis and Tolkien, we can see the importance of such a transformation in understanding. C.S. Lewis personally experienced such a transformation when he became a Christian.” Interestingly, right after this she makes note of a Lewis comment that prior to conversion nature was one of the few areas of life he didn’t find meaningless- in other words he already had an appreciation of nature prior to conversion. In my own reading of his works it is quite clear to me that he had deep love of nature long before his conversion, and I think it is accurate to say that nature became one of the avenues that God used to bring about his conversion; which is essentially the opposite of what Page is asserting. It also bothers me that she seems to link the transformation that takes place during conversion through the Holy Spirit with the transformation in environmental awareness brought about through fantasy literature.

A Lament for Creation

The second essay is aptly titled A Lament for Creation. In this section, Dr. Page surveys facts and statistics related to humanity’s destructive impact on nature, and how that, in turn, comes back to undermine our own well being. She focuses this chapter on the materialistic, consumer mindset that is deeply embedded into the fabric of wealthy nations, with the United States being the worst offender. Noting the abundant resources God has blessed our planet with she observes, “The problem is that many of us use resources beyond our immediate needs. When we use more than what we need, it changes what is available to our neighbor.” Page then asks, “Have you considered that caring for creation is another way of loving your neighbor?”

What follows is a wealth of statistics to illustrate the many ways we have harmed our environment, with some illustrations of how literature (such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring) helped to awaken people to environmental problems. Relevant passages were quoted from both Lewis and Tolkien at various points as well, but they really didn’t flow with the other material. This is one of my issues with this section, and really the whole book- Page’s constant jumping back and forth between statistics, bits of theology, and literary quotes made it difficult to track where she was going with her ideas. It seemed she tried to pack too much into the book and it wasn’t really tied together very well.

Another issue that I had with the middle section was how Dr. Page developed the idea of lamenting for creation. “With this in mind, how do we reconcile the disproportionate impacts of the ways we use resources and the environmental degradation that results? Once we recognize the injustice of these actions, we can lament.” I found this suggestion to be odd, unsatisfying, and incongruous with the preceding statistical presentation. The direction in which she developed this idea did not improve the situation. She ties lament to ‘climate privilege’ with a quote from Soong-Chan Rah, “Lament calls for an authentic encounter with the truth and challenges privilege, because privilege would hide the truth that causes discomfort.” I want to pause here and consider this further, because I felt this was where the book really lost its way.

Using the language of ‘privilege’ to attempt identify and solve social problems has always struck me as misguided. It inevitably creates an us versus them mindset (privileged versus unprivileged), identifies privilege with concepts that are not intrinsically wrong, and then attempts to push those who have been deemed ‘privileged’ into some sort of guilt, shame, or in this case lament; which in the end usually accomplishes nothing concrete except to create a lot of mistrust between the groups. It is simply a highly misguided attempt at achieving what are often legitimate goals. When Dr. Page drifts off into discussions of the ‘climate privileged” (which is apparently anyone living in a northern temperate region) she completely undermines the good points she raises.

For example, she frequently brings up the high levels of consumption found in wealthy nations, noting that the methods needed to obtain the resources necessary to maintain this way of life cause a ripple effect that harms people in various ways. She stops to ask, “How do we challenge comfort? How do we open our eyes to the need for lament?” These questions puzzle me as I see in both the Old Testament and the New Testament precisely how to challenge comfort based on greed and materialism- to call it out as a sin in need of repentance, not as an environmental issue in need of lament. Many conservative evangelical churches who are blind to any sense of responsibility to the environment are nonetheless very concerned about the materialistic excesses of our society, precisely because it is frequently a subject of condemnation in the Bible. Page is correct when she links the materialistic excess of our society with environmental harm, but rather than pointing to the way the Bible addresses materialism and greed (for example the story of Jesus encounter with the rich young ruler), she veers into the self defeating path of ‘climate privilege’ and lament.

It is self defeating because even assuming ‘climate privilege’ is a helpful descriptive term, it is strongly linked with progressive politics and given that most American evangelicals are very conservative (something like 86% voted for Donald Trump), using this terminology seems at best to be a counterproductive strategy to get them to engage on climate issues. As I mentioned above, I do not think it is a helpful term as it lumps everyone into two groups – the northern temperate ‘climate privileged’ people who are the problem and everyone else who are the victims. To be clear, in one sense I agree with this – speaking of what I observe here in the United States, we are undoubtedly a very materialistic society that encourages unnecessary levels of consumption, and I have no doubt that this excess has environmental consequences. However rather than creating these two groups of ‘climate privileged’ and ‘climate victims’, a more helpful approach would be to recognize that greed and materialism are not functions of ‘climate privilege’ but a function of spiritual condition. The evangelical culture I have participated in most of my life is one that has emphasized Jesus countercultural teaching on material possessions, but rather than leveraging this point of connection with conservative evangelicals, Page incorrectly identifies the problem which lead to an unhelpful solution (lament as a solution for materialism) and causes unnecessary friction with the very people Page wants most to engage (conservative evangelicals).

As a side note, I am also a little dubious as to the scientific validity of attempting to label parts of the world as ‘climate privileged’. Page’s rationale for identifying northern temperate climates zones as ‘climate privileged’ is based on her assertion that these areas are more resistant to the effects of climate change. However, an article I recently read suggests some of the effects of global warming could cause dramatic change due to severe cooling in Northern Europe, which suggest that no part of the world is truly ‘climate privileged’.

Ask the Animals to Teach You

The third section of the book entitled Ask the Animals to Teach You focuses on the idea that wonder is a transformative virtue that, if regained, will motivate people towards action on environmental causes. Dr. Page explains it this way, “Wonder is more than a feeling of reverence; it is an action- it is the moment we start engaging our curiosity by asking new questions. Wonder moves us to action!” She adds, “ If we understand wonder as a virtue, as suggested by Bouma-Prediger, “we exhibit the virtue when we have cultivated the capability to stand in grateful amazement at what God has made and is remaking!” I believe this gratitude for the wonder and beauty of nature should then lead us to act through stewardship of creation.” This chapter then precedes in much the same format as the other two; a lot of statistics interspersed with references and quotations from Lewis and Tolkien to support her overall contention of the transformative power of wonder to reorient us toward ecological awareness. Many of my issues with previous chapters emerge once again in this chapter, but I want to focus on her core assertion that “experiencing wonder can be transformational”. Once again I would argue that she is using the word transformation in a misleading and confusing way.

An example of this can be found in the way she discusses a quote from Romans, “Experiencing wonder can be transformational, and this has important implications for Christians. If we believe what we read in Romans that “God’s invisible qualities- his invisible qualities and divine nature-has been clearly seen, being understood from what was made, so that men are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20) then spending more time in creation may open our minds and help us understand more about our creator and transform us so that we develop a virtue of wonder and gratitude.” I will now quote Romans 1:18-23 to provide some context to the verse Page quotes:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

In this passage Paul is laying the background for understanding Jesus death and resurrection by describing the condition of fallen humanity. Paul references creation not to inspire us to develop a virtue of wonder and gratitude, but to note that even people who to claim to have no knowledge of God cannot use that as an excuse, because creation itself is reflective of God’s character. Suggesting that this passage is encouraging us to spend more time in nature is bizarre. Like the passage where Page references C. S. Lewis conversion, she seems to misunderstand the kind of transformation being discussed. If Paul is hoping to see a transformation here, it is one based on deep conviction, repentance, and a restoration of the knowledge of who humanity is meant to be through restored relationship with our Creator. Using this passage as supporting evidence for the idea that spending time in nature will make someone more aware of God and therefore transform them from environmental apathy to environmental passion is a misuing this scripture.

There is a lot more I could say, but I don’t wish to belabor the point any further than necessary. As I ponder what bothers me about The Wonders of Creation I am reminded of a book I read last year called Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology lays out the philosophical underpinnings of what the authors called the deep ecology movement. It is a worthwhile and thoughtful read, offering both a philosophical explanation of the movement as well as environmentally oriented critiques of other societal movements, including Christianity. What struck me as I read The Wonders of Creation was the many similarities between the philosophy expounded in Deep Ecology and the perspective Dr. Page is advocating in The Wonders of Creation. In fact, I would go so far as to describe her book as having a core of deep ecology philosophy with scripture, Lewis, and Tolkien playing a supporting role. I think this gets to the heart of my disappointment with this book. It seems that Dr. Page has placed ‘creation care’ as the end to be achieved, and spiritual transformation as the means to that end. I believe this explains her constant misunderstanding and misuse of both scripture and examples from literature.

Rereading some of C. S. Lewis writings makes me realize that Lewis himself offered caution against the approach that Dr. Page takes in this book. In his classic The Four Loves, Lewis devotes several pages to examination of the love of nature. On the topic taking nature for our teacher, Lewis makes the following observation,

If you take nature as a teacher, she will teach you exactly the lessons you had already decided to learn; this is another way of saying nature does not teach. The tendency to take her as a teacher is obviously very easily grafted on to the experience we call the ‘love of nature’. But it is only a graft. While we are actually subjected to them, the ‘moods’ and ‘spirits’ of nature point no morals. Overwhelming gaiety, insupportable grandeur, sombre desolation are flung at you. Make what you can of them, if you must make at all. The only imperative nature utters is, “Look. Listen. Attend.”

In the same discussion he further warns against striving to know God through the wonder of nature,

We have seen an image of glory. We must not try to find a direct path through it and beyond it to an increasing knowledge of God. The path peters out almost at once….We must take a detour- leave the hills and woods and go back to our studies, to church, to our Bibles, to our knees. Otherwise the love of nature is beginning to turn into a nature religion. And then, even if it does not lead us to the Dark Gods, will lead us to a great deal of nonsense.

I really do think that we can learn an awful lot from Narnia and Middle-Earth about environmental stewardship if that actually was the focus of a book. It felt from the beginning that Tolkien and Lewis were quoted simply because they were useful to help prove Dr. Page’s points; meanwhile the true lessons about stewardship we could learn from Aslan, Bombadil, or the Elves of Lothlorien remain to be learned.

Thanks for reading. Please leave a comment below or on Facebook . You can sign up below if you wish to have new posts emailed to you, or you can follow by ‘Liking’ the Facebook page.

The Wonders of Creation
The Wonders of Creation: Learning Stewardship from Narnia and Middle-Earth by Kristen Page, Christina Bieber Lake & Noah J. Toly readers will explore the beloved fictional landscapes of Narnia and Middle-earth in order to discover what we might learn about real-life landscapes and how to become better stewards of God’s good creation. Paperback, 140 pages. Recommended for ages 15 years and older.